|
From: | Paul Thomas |
Subject: | octave API and present octave classes |
Date: | Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:11:48 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 |
In essence, there is a question as to whether it is worthwhile documenting the octave classes whilst
(i) a potential API or a stable mex library might be in the wings; and (ii) the underlying representation of octave classes might change?My reaction to (i) is that it seems to me that the first layer of octave derived classes, such as matrix, ColumnVector, Cell and all the others, together with octave_value and octave_value_list, form a rather good API that needs documenting.
The corollary to this responds to (ii). It is that derived classes, like Array, idx_vector and so on should, not be considered to be part of the API (except implicitly through fortran_vec(), for example) , in order that they can be modified in the future. Is this not the strength of implementing octave in C++? The example of the use of a transpose flag, rather than a physical transpose was mentioned. It would still be natural to have a Matrix::transpose(), either inherited or as a class member, would it not?
Regards Paul T
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |